Dallas ICM Dallas ICM Pioneer SitePioneer Site

Stage 1 Lessons Stage 1 Lessons LearnedLearnedWebinarWebinar

July 24, 2008July 24, 2008

Why ICM is needed in the US 75 Corridor

• DFW 5th most congested region in US (#1 worst region for growth in congestion)

• DFW population is 6 million and adding 1 million every 8 years

• US 75 is a critical, regional corridor• Travel demand and congestion continue to grow• No ability to expand freeway, arterials, or alternate

routes• Other freeways are scheduled for construction• Significant employers in corridor• Numerous special events throughout year• Showcase for ITS integration in the region

US 75 Corridor Networks

• US 75 Freeway with Continuous Frontage Roads

• HOV lanes on US 75 and IH-635

• Dallas North Tollway• 167 Miles of Arterials• DART Bus Network

Including Express Service• DART Light Rail

– Red and Blue Lines

Description of Corridor

• Corridor Assets– Diverse transportation infrastructure – State-of-the-art freeway and frontage

road system– Recently completed 5-level interchange– HOV, toll and SOV lanes – Parallel arterials – Two light rail transit lines – Bus transit

• Management Centers– 3 city TMCs– state TMC– transit TMC – toll authority TMC

Corridor Summary Statistics

Freeways with Frontage Roads 272 Lane-miles

High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities 31 lane-miles

Light Rail Transit System (DART) 2 lines – 20 stations

Bus Transit System (DART) 30 bus routes

Dallas Signal System 500 signals

Plano Signal System 196 signals

Richardson Signal System 120 signals

Arterials Streets 167 center-line miles

Park and Ride Lots (DART) 9 lots

Pedestrian / Bike Trails 12 miles

Tollways (NTTA) 105 lane-miles

Dallas ICM Team

• Agency Partners:– Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Lead)– Cities of Dallas, Highland Park,

Richardson, Plano, and University Park

– North Central Texas Council of Governments

– North Texas Tollway Authority– TxDOT Dallas District

• Technical Support Team:– Telvent Farradyne (Lead)– Texas Transportation Institute– Southern Methodist University– University of Texas @ Arlington

Operating Agency Team

Technical Support Team

Dallas Area Rapid Transit Abed Abukar – Operations Technology

Mahesh Kuimil – HOV OperationsTimothy Newby – Bus OperationsLarry Gaul – Light Rail OperationsDonnie Thompson – Paratransit

Allan Gorman – IT Lead Southern Methodist UniversityKhaled Abdelghany - Lead

University of Texas at ArlingtonSia Ardekani – Lead

Steve Mattingly - Evaluation

Texas Transportation InstituteChris Poe – Lead

Ed Seymour – Standards

City of Dallas Elizabeth Ramirez – Lead

Mark Titus – Signal Operations

City of PlanoLloyd Neal - Lead

City of RichardsonRobert Saylor - Lead

North Central Texas Council of Governments

Nattalie Bettger – ITS Lead

North Texas Tollway AuthorityYang Ouyang - Lead

Texas Department of Transportation - Dallas

Kelly Selman – Agency LeadAndy Oberlander – Traffic Engineering

Rick Cortez – Freeway Operations

Koorosh Olyai, P.E.ICM Pioneer Project Team Lead

Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Town of Highland ParkMeran Dadgostar - Lead

Telvent FarradyneAhmad Sadegh – Program Manager

Kevin Miller – ICM Lead

EMS ProvidersDART

City of ArlingtonCity of Dallas

City of Grand PrairieCity of IrvingCity of Plano

City of Richardson

City of University Park Bob Smallwood – Lead

Regional Support for ICM

• Regional ITS MOU executed in 1999

• Regional ITS Committees Will Provide Oversight

• Programmed Funding for Regional Integration– Regional communication

system– Center-to-Center (C2C) plug-

ins

Regional ITS Elements in Place

• Dallas Area-wide ITS Plan (1996, 2006 update)• Individual agency ITS Plans• Regional Architecture• Regional Concept of Operations• Regional Traveler Information Website• Regional Telecommunication • C2C Video and Data Sharing• Regional Data Archiving• Statewide interoperable tolling system

Regional ITS Elements in Place

Freeway System

• US 75 Corridor fully instrumented by 2007• New DalTrans Transportation Management Center

– Integrate TxDOT, DART, and Dallas County Sheriff’s Dept

• CCTV Cameras• Detection Systems• Dynamic Message Signs

– With posted travel times

• Mobility Assistance Patrol

Arterial System

• Central Systems– All signals connected– C2C interface funded– 911 Integration

• Surveillance cameras– Video to wreckers

• Arterial DMS – Freeway integration funded

• Traffic Signal Priority

DART Transit System (13 member cities)

• Light Rail Transit • Park-and-Ride Lots• Managed / HOV Lanes• Bus System

– Local, Express

• Commuter Rail Connection• Automated Vehicle Location• Centralized Transit Control• Passenger Alert System• Transit Signal Priority• 300 Member Transit Police

US 75 ICM Vision

Operate the US 75 Corridor in a true multimodal, integrated,

efficient, and safe fashion where the focus is on the transportation

customer.

Physical Architecture

Dallas – US 75 ICM Strategies

• Possible ICM Strategies:– Performance measure approach

• Multi-modal and/or modal independent• Common measures across agencies and jurisdictions• Comparative measures shared with all agencies

– Improved traveler information and operational strategies to promote modal shift

– Enhanced data sharing among stakeholders and responders

– Development of sophisticated tools• Modeling for evaluation • Real-time modeling for operational prediction and

optimization

Decision Support Tool

Dallas – Goals for ICM Corridor

• Transportation Goals– Increase corridor

throughput– Improve travel time

reliability– Improved incident

management– Enable intermodal travel

decisions

• Community Goals– Encourage business

development– Sustain economic activity– Enable emergency

services

Source: FHWA Urban Congestion Report

Lessons Learned - Operational

• Only “extra” capacity in US 75 corridor is on rail transit• Individual agencies operating their systems very well• Operational opportunities exist with collaborative

operation– May require penalizing one user group to benefit overall corridor– Example – Freeway incident

• May require decreasing cross street arterial green time in favor of more arterial green time parallel to freeway for diverted trips

• Need for decision support tool to assess those operational trade-offs

• Need for better real-time arterial data

Lessons Learned - Institutional

• Good partnerships already in place• Operational trust already exists from traffic management

team, incident management cooperation, and HOV lane operation

• Build on existing agreements / MOUs• Build on existing oversight

– ICM reports to existing Regional ITS Committee

Lessons Learned - Technical

• Need for enhancing regional data sharing– Must accelerate existing data sharing projects already scheduled

for region

• Need to determine methods for comparing and measuring multi-modal information

• Need additional detection for better real-time arterial data– Travel times from toll tags may be most cost effective

• Need for detailed system engineering knowledge– Developing Concept of Operations and System Requirements

was system engineering intensive– Use of consultants with experience was beneficial

Conclusions

• Individual agencies are operating their systems well• Opportunities for advancement are in coordinated

management• Need alternatives for travelers, especially transit• Need common, reliable data platforms for decision

making• Building on existing institutional arrangements was a key

to building consensus• Need to build trust with the public on accuracy and

reliability of information